Key challenges and best practices in qualitative IB research
| Key challenges | Best practices for overcoming key challenges | Implications for qualitative research in IB |
|---|---|---|
| The exploratory, inductive research straitjacket | Schembri, Fletcher and Buck (2023) Ritvala, Granqvist and Piekkari (2021) | Theorizing in qualitative research in IB relies on the researcher’s ability to creatively and convincingly justify connections between phenomena, data and theory |
| The template thinking in methodological reporting | Geary and Aguzzoli (2016) | The conduct and analysis of qualitative research in IB rely on making the researcher’s unique reasoning, choices and thought processes explicit and accessible in the reporting |
| The emphasis on propositional theorizing | Amdam and Benito (2022),Niittymies, Pajunen and Lamberg (2022) Leppäaho, Jack and Plakoyiannaki (2022) | Qualitative IB research embraces the emergence of alternative explanations and unexpected findings from previously overlooked sources, in a non-predetermined and open-ended manner |
| The positivist quality criteria | Bruton et al. (2011) Yagi and Kleinberg (2011) | Qualitative IB research requires criteria that critically, thoroughly and truthfully assess the quality of the study, while also acknowledging its uniqueness and distinctive characteristics |
| Key challenges | Best practices for overcoming key challenges | Implications for qualitative research in |
|---|---|---|
| The exploratory, inductive research straitjacket | Theorizing in qualitative research in | |
| The template thinking in methodological reporting | The conduct and analysis of qualitative research in | |
| The emphasis on propositional theorizing | Qualitative | |
| The positivist quality criteria | Qualitative |
Sharing content requires targeting cookies to be enabled. Please update your cookie preferences to use this feature.